cohesion of an army

[De-Legro]

And the enemy will adapt, spreading their army out, and your archers will do no damage. Both sides will have the same setting change.

Or, we end up with more archers used, and maybe one side has theirs set to retreat and the other doesn't, and the one that doesn't retreat wins the battle.

Low withdrawal only happens AFTER the infantry have reached your archers--at that point, it's too late.

Do you know what I see? I see infantry-heavy blob armies, with few archers, few cavalry, few SF, and few MI. I would like to see a combined-arms approach, and that only works well if the archers don't stand around like idiots while the opposing force moves 3 ranks towards them.

Archers already do less damage, due to range, wind, friendly troops on the line. Can't we make them work just a little smarter?

Yeah I see infantry blob armies a lot to. Mostly I kill them with a combined arms approach. My army is actually far more vulnerable to a mixed cavalry/infantry army. Infantry blobs have their disadvantages that can be utilised without changing the mechanics. The problem is not that effective counters exist, it is that you don't have the right to really determine what the composition of your force will be. People LIKE leading infantry, thus you tend to get lots and lots of infantry.

[Charles]

The cohesion of an army should be directly based on the leadership of the person leading it.  Whether it be the general, marshal, or some other noble.  I think it would be neat to have some way for the Sponsor of the army to set the heirarchy of the army beyond the SiC.  Not to allow them to set orders but to lead the army when their superiors are not present.  This could be set automatically by leadership points, or let the Sponsor manipulate it themselves.  There should always be someone leading the troops.  Their cohesion will be determined whether that person has the experience to lead and so gains the trust of the soldiers. 

[Zakilevo]

I don't believe so. BM armies are not modern day armies. They are all from different places, trained similar but different ways and they probably speak dialects. There is no sense of unity as one single united army. They are more like smaller armies combined to form a bigger one. A well trained and united army will not retreat because a smaller portion of the army dies. But when a small army under Knight A is defeated, other smaller armies would want to retreat since they don't care much about others as a whole. To make everyone feel united, you will probably need to train them as a whole or fight a couple battle together. A great leader alone is not enough to make an army great.

[De-Legro]

Didn't we used to have this? Army organisation or some such stat that I only ever saw in battle reports.

[Charles]

A great leader alone is not enough to make an army great.

I disagree whole heartedly.  A great leader will not turn a group of peasants into a great army true, but a great leader will turn an army into a great army.  It was the charisma and leadership of people like Hanibal, Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, etc. that made their armies so formidable. 

[Zakilevo]

Those people you mentioned are all from pre-medieval ages. The roman way of organizing armies faded after the western roman empire fell apart. Each noble raised their own men. They were never able to muster armies of great size like during the era of roman empire. Nor did they march under the same banner unless their lieges called for them. Do you honestly think medieval soldiers had more cohesive than roman soldiers?

[De-Legro]

I disagree whole heartedly.  A great leader will not turn a group of peasants into a great army true, but a great leader will turn an army into a great army.  It was the charisma and leadership of people like Hanibal, Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, etc. that made their armies so formidable.

That was part of it, but by no means all of it. Take Alexander for example. Being left with a veteran core of well trained and equipped men from his father was by no mean irrelevant to his rise, as was the fact he was able to build on top of his father tactical and strategic work. He was also building on top of the momentum his fathers conquests had provided. Would Charisma and Leadership alone provided his victories if not for his fathers advancement of the Macedonian Pike? Or his fathers work at integrating conqueror forces into his unified army?

Charisma and Leadership will boost an army, no doubt but like all things on their own they will not turn an army into a great army.

[Anaris]

Didn't we used to have this? Army organisation or some such stat that I only ever saw in battle reports.

We did. However, it was never implemented fully/correctly, and was removed after a short time.

[Dante Silverfire]

Just a short comment on realism:

While it may be more "realistic" that the archers would retreat as soon as the infantry line breaks, it would also be equally realistic, that even after retreating around 50% of them would be run down and killed, and even more if the opponents have a good contingent of cavalry. Thus, they would likely die while running without causing any damage. As was stated earlier, massive damage was done to armies on the retreat.

Quite simply the retreats would have to be much more devastating to keep things in line. Neither change is beneficial towards the game balance or fun.

[Zakilevo]

Just a short comment on realism:

While it may be more "realistic" that the archers would retreat as soon as the infantry line breaks, it would also be equally realistic, that even after retreating around 50% of them would be run down and killed, and even more if the opponents have a good contingent of cavalry. Thus, they would likely die while running without causing any damage. As was stated earlier, massive damage was done to armies on the retreat.

Quite simply the retreats would have to be much more devastating to keep things in line. Neither change is beneficial towards the game balance or fun.

True. More people died while retreating. That is when slaughters begin.

[De-Legro]

Just a short comment on realism:

While it may be more "realistic" that the archers would retreat as soon as the infantry line breaks, it would also be equally realistic, that even after retreating around 50% of them would be run down and killed, and even more if the opponents have a good contingent of cavalry. Thus, they would likely die while running without causing any damage. As was stated earlier, massive damage was done to armies on the retreat.

Quite simply the retreats would have to be much more devastating to keep things in line. Neither change is beneficial towards the game balance or fun.

Exactly. A true "orderly retreat" is more of a modern thing, where a rear guard action can be effectively fought in order to buy the others time to retreat. Such a thing is possible on a medevial battlefield, but to a far lesser degree. Remember that battlefields were often chosen because they were open, it was entirely possible that you had to cover significant ground before you reached anything that could be used to hide you movement. Similarly the terrain often did not favor a small group being able to tie up the enemy force while the rest of the army escapes.

[pcw27]

I regularly see reports that say archers withdraw due to lack of infantry cover. I don't know what causes this but it happens all the time.